8 June

[TheCat]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> The the proportion of working-age adults who do

> not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to

> 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people

> [2007/08 to 2015/16].

>

> This is an indictment of the low pay policy

> promoted by the tory parties

and nothing at all to do with the almost doubling of the personal allowance since 2010?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 50s? More Victorian era...

1850's perhaps?

[jacks09]

"Girl jobs and boy jobs" is such a needless stick to beat the Tories with, and reflects the worst in British politics; the name calling and frankly playground type bickering that occurs between the parties.

Can we actually keep to discussing the policies (as you did with grammar schools and fox hunting)

[Jeremy]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if the spread of international workers in say

> banking in London is anything to go by - and very

> many of them work for big, international financial

> services with plenty of offices overseas (that

> will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily

> transferable within their companies; many won't

> share Left wing views on sharing half of their

> income for the greater good either; - not hard to

> say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll

> with devastating results for tax take.

I'm sure there's some truth in that (just look at the number of westerners living in Singapore and HK, etc) but personally I'm not opposed to modest tax hikes for high earners. I think the proposed financial transaction tax would have far more serious repercussions for the City - along with Brexit of course.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Even if you're ideologically opposed to

> the privatisation of the NHS, why would you

> begrudge someone who can afford to go elsewhere,

> doing just that and freeing up pressure on the

> public system?

It's very much not a zero-sum equation: if people paying to go private simply dropped out of the waiting lists with no adverse effect on the NHS any sensible person would be all for it. However, any sensible person knows this is not the case. Firstly, people who go private will tend not to care about the NHS, so they're not going to vote for policies to improve it (please don't tell me everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly vote for tax rises to improve a service they don't use, because 99% won't). As these people start to withdraw support, the NHS gets weaker, more people are forced to seek private care, it gets weaker still until ultimately it withers and dies through lack of support. Secondly, nearly all private consultants work in the NHS as well, but in their private work they offer longer consultations, more rigorous testing etc, all of which take them away from their NHS work (bearing in mind these are generally people we have trained at enormous expense). A doctor once put it rather neatly to me: "People who use private healthcare like to say 'Well it's like a group of people waiting for a bus, if occasionally a taxi goes by and one of them takes it, that makes the bus queue shorter for everyone else.' What they're forgetting is that every taxi is driven by a bus driver."

But don't believe me, ask a doctor: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/05/ban-nhs-doctors-from-private-work-hospital-consultant-says

As for private schools having to pay VAT, why shouldn't they? If I choose to pay a private security guard for my house rather than rely on the police, I have to pay VAT, if a council tenant wants to get a builder to make improvements to their property rather than waiting for the council, they have to pay VAT, why should others offering a private service be any different?

"Politics of envy" is a tired old phrase which really means "I've got lots and I'm buggered if I see why I should share, and if anyone objects it's not because they want to improve things for others it's because I'm so great they're jealous."

[Burbage]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and nothing at all to do with the almost doubling

> of the personal allowance since 2010?

That has something to do with it, but it's not quite what it appears to be.

That 'almost doubling' is still at the bottom of the scale. Shifting it from c.?6k to c.?10k might look a big change, but only if ?10k was enough to live on (and NICs hadn't risen a bit). Given a living income is around ?19k (and even that often qualifies for benefits) that rise shouldn't really have had much of an effect on the total number of working-age people exempt from income tax, assuming those working-age people are working for a living.

But it has had an effect. The government predictions in 2010 were that 3.2m would be taken out of tax between 2010 and 2015. In reality, 4m were taken out of it. That's a 20% overshoot. Or an unexpected uptick of about 20% in declining incomes (or downward mobility), relative to the government's beamish expectations of the 'recovery'.

In other words, the 'jobs for everyone' claims, and the lure of the green shoots of recovery, have been a bit of a lie. Overall we're doing worse, at least individually (GDP may be up, but churning money round the City can make a nation look more prosperous, however badly its people are doing). And that's to be expected. We've no natural resources, virtually no domestically-owned industry and, despite Shoreditch, we're a long way from the dizzy heights of the digital economy. For the moment, we can scrape a living from the commission on financial skulduggery, flogging arms to the despicable and pimping ourselves out to Qatar and Hollywood by way of tax-breaks. We can hide the worst behind a wall of debt, and paste it over with upbeat propaganda about jobs and incomes that aren't. But it won't last, and Brexit might very well put an end to that. Happily, however, the politicians are able to have their cake and eat it. For Brexit isn't just a crowd-pleasing distraction on the path the economic perdition, it's a glorious, unquestionable scapegoat.

[DaveR]

"NB - can someone explain to me the difference

> between a 'worker' and someone who has a job?

A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an 'employer is the 'demander'

'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human capital' is the skill that a worker possesses.

Another measure is that a worker receives a reward for 'earned income' [wages, salaries, tips, other taxable employee pay and self-employment income] as opposed to 'unearned income' [property income, inheritance, rent, interest & profit]. The unemployed who make themselves available for work are regarded as workers except for those who are classified as unemployable. There is another category is the discouraged worker who has essentially given up on seeking work due to finding it nigh impossible to find work.

Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend to treat their transition to 'employer' differently.

It gets complicated according to hours worked & hours available for work etc - economists treat the subject differently to tax people."

Any chance of getting an answer from someone who actually read the question?

To be clear - I have a job, but in the world according to Corbyn I'm clearly not a 'worker' (to whom only good things must happen and who must be protected at all costs - by unions). So where/how do you draw the line? Is it a money thing, is it public sector vs private sector, is it a North vs South thing (though you don't get much more South than JC)?

NB - by the definition according to Mr "I didn't read the question" above I am very clearly a worker, but that just demonstrates that (as expected) he or she is adding nothing useful here.

[jaywalker]

the concept that haunts that discourse (but cannot be spoken) is proletariat. If (not my view, but it is of some) they are in the vanguard of the move to enlightenment (the bourgeois being too blinded by self-interest, desperately clinging on to their privileges by solipsistic acts of self-justification) then it is only through the proletariat that humanity can progress. 'worker' is useful term for the far-left here: identifying the proletariat having become a little difficult (especially since most of those eligible seem to be voting Tory this time around, which is not quite what Marx would have had in mind I suspect).

[TheCat]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> Even if you're ideologically opposed to

> > the privatisation of the NHS, why would you

> > begrudge someone who can afford to go

> elsewhere,

> > doing just that and freeing up pressure on the

> > public system?

>

> It's very much not a zero-sum equation: if people

> paying to go private simply dropped out of the

> waiting lists with no adverse effect on the NHS

> any sensible person would be all for it. However,

> any sensible person knows this is not the case.

> Firstly, people who go private will tend not to

> care about the NHS, so they're not going to vote

> for policies to improve it (please don't tell me

> everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly

> vote for tax rises to improve a service they don't

> use, because 99% won't).

I disagree. I've had two knee reconstructions and a back operation, covered with private cover (to allow me to walk inside of a few weeks rather than a few months, or nearly a year in the last case). But I still see my NHS GP, both my kids were born in NHS hospitals. My son sees an NHS physio. I personally, would support improvement in NHS services, despite also wanting to continue my Pvt insurance (perhaps Im not 'everyone', but its my view), and I don't think its uncommon that people with pvt care end up utilizing a mix of pvt and NHS services.

>

> As for private schools having to pay VAT, why

> shouldn't they? If I choose to pay a private

> security guard for my house rather than rely on

> the police, I have to pay VAT, if a council tenant

> wants to get a builder to make improvements to

> their property rather than waiting for the

> council, they have to pay VAT, why should others

> offering a private service be any different?

By hiring the builder, rather than waiting for the council, one would expect the service to be faster and better, otherwise why would you pay for it? By hiring the personal security guard, you get a personalised security service, therefore it is 'value added'. So ideologically, if you charge VAT on private education, then labour would also have to conceded that pvt education is faster/better than the public system, and the 'value added' tax should mean that it is a value added service; therefore should have no problem with pvt educated kids having a 'leg up' on public school kids. Somehow i doubt they'd accept that!

> "Politics of envy" is a tired old phrase which

> really means "I've got lots and I'm buggered if I

> see why I should share, and if anyone objects it's

> not because they want to improve things for others

> it's because I'm so great they're jealous."

Just because its tired and old, doesn't make it untrue (David Attenbourgh still draws a crowd:)). I could also flip your description to "You've got lots and I'm buggered if I see why you shouldn't share"

[Lordship 516]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> >

> > The the proportion of working-age adults who do

> > not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent

> to

> > 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people

> > [2007/08 to 2015/16].

> >

> > This is an indictment of the low pay policy

> > promoted by the tory parties

>

> and nothing at all to do with the almost doubling

> of the personal allowance since 2010?

This was not an indictment - this was even the arch right winger Osborne recognizing that the lower paid needed relief at the lower end of the income scale....

Why not take care to review the huge divergence in income that has developed since 1979 when the Thatcher monetarist machine got hold of the UK..? We have indeed been swamped & riddled by people of a different culture, people who are intent on enslaving the population to their monetarist profit machines, indentured for life to feed their discountable receivables that are wrapped into derivitives that have destabilized world economies many times over since Thatcher, Reagan & their horrible fascist friends took control of our lives.

This is just an objective view of where we have gotten to since that awful group managed to get control of the financial institutions and their supportive media vultures.

The tories are aptly named - the actual maening of the word tory derives from the Gaelic word 't?raidhe' [t?ir in Gaelic is to hunt, chase or pursue]. Tory Island, the only part of the so-called British Isles where the Customs & Excise could never collect duty & where even the British Army gave up - the word 't?raidhe' means brigand, bandit, robber - one of a class noted for their outrages and savage cruelty, someone who causes terror, a bully.

They have been robbing the population in one way or another for generations and they will continue to scalp us for future generations to come unless the cycle is broken.

Just a note for the Mayniacs - It was Thatcher who signed the Single European Act, creating the single market - her adoring fans [May, Johnson et al] have conveniently forgotten that & we mustn't also forget that ?every Prime Minister needs a willie?.

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "NB - can someone explain to me the difference

> > between a 'worker' and someone who has a job?

>

> A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an

> 'employer is the 'demander'

>

> 'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human

> capital' is the skill that a worker possesses.

>

> Another measure is that a worker receives a reward

> for 'earned income' as opposed to 'unearned

> income' . The unemployed who make themselves

> available for work are regarded as workers except

> for those who are classified as unemployable.

> There is another category is the discouraged

> worker who has essentially given up on seeking

> work due to finding it nigh impossible to find

> work.

>

> Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend

> to treat their transition to 'employer'

> differently.

>

> It gets complicated according to hours worked &

> hours available for work etc - economists treat

> the subject differently to tax people."

>

>

>

>

>

> Any chance of getting an answer from someone who

> actually read the question?

>

> To be clear - I have a job, but in the world

> according to Corbyn I'm clearly not a 'worker' (to

> whom only good things must happen and who must be

> protected at all costs - by unions). So where/how

> do you draw the line? Is it a money thing, is it

> public sector vs private sector, is it a North vs

> South thing (though you don't get much more South

> than JC)?

>

> NB - by the definition according to Mr "I didn't

> read the question" above I am very clearly a

> worker, but that just demonstrates that (as

> expected) he or she is adding nothing useful here.

I read your question - you failed to understand the answer. To make it more simple for your confused mind - A worker is someone who receives earned income to do a job. You can also do a job but not receive earned income such as a landlord might do or a speculator who plays with inherited or previously earned income to make an unearned profit. The Royal Family have jobs but are not 'workers' in the economic sense but they do a lot of good work.

I don't know what your job is but I doubt that Corbyn or anyone else has singled you out as not being a worker.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By hiring the builder, rather than waiting for the

> council, one would expect the service to be faster

> and better, otherwise why would you pay for it? So

> ideologically, if you charge VAT on private

> education, then labour would also have to conceded

> that pvt education is faster/better than the

> public system, and the 'value added' tax should

> mean that it is a value added service; therefore

> should have no problem with pvt educated kids

> having a 'leg up' on public school kids. Somehow i

> doubt they'd accept that!

I don't understand what this means. Private school pupils getting ahead of public school pupils? Are you using "public school" in the American sense? I'm not sure Value Added Tax actually makes a judgement on the value of a service...and yes, private education is (in many cases) going to be better than state education, due to smaller class sizes, better facilities, better working conditions and salaries for teachers etc etc. I've no problem with people paying for that for their children (provided suitable weighting is applied at, for example, university admissions stage), provided they pay appropriate tax on it as they would for any other private service.

>

> > "Politics of envy" is a tired old phrase which

> > really means "I've got lots and I'm buggered if

> I

> > see why I should share, and if anyone objects

> it's

> > not because they want to improve things for

> others

> > it's because I'm so great they're jealous."

>

>

> Just because its tired and old, doesn't make it

> untrue (David Attenbourgh still draws a crowd:)).

> I could also flip your description to "You've got

> lots and I'm buggered if I see why you shouldn't

> share"

Yes, I do think those who are lucky enough to have a lot (including, relatively speaking, myself) should have to share. As George Orwell said (from memory so forgive inaccuracies), "The planet is a raft sailing through space with a finite amount of provisions on it, it's only fair that everyone should do a fair share of the work in exchange for a fair share of the provisions."

[jaywalker]

I think DaveR is pointing to something more sociological Lordship. In this reading 'workers' qua proletariat: zero contract, temporary, minimum-waged, unemployed, manual, no human capital (and little or no social or cultural capital), unpaid (housewives/househusbands, those staying at home to look after the elderly or infirm). That is why DaveR is not a 'worker' even though he works.

in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx (and Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only ones who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for what it is: a system of symbolic violence in which privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the illusion that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by solipsistic acts of self-justification e.g. those who inherit gifts come to think of themselves as gifted in the education system). Unfortunately, as Bourdieu also saw, the 'workers' as so defined are subject to a reverse sociodicy of disillusion and stoic acceptance of their lot - partly because capitalism has dissolved the proletariat into 1. the precariat (the 'workers') 2. the aspirational consumer or highly paid unionist (e.g. tube worker). So they never rise up to fulfill Marx's promise, except in ways that are self-defeating (as in the ressentiment of Brexit).

[Jeremy]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Firstly, people who go private will tend not to

> care about the NHS, so they're not going to vote

> for policies to improve it (please don't tell me

> everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly

> vote for tax rises to improve a service they don't

> use, because 99% won't)

I think you're wrong there. Lots of people have private cover - it's almost the norm if you're in a professional private sector job. But we still rely on NHS for GPs, A&E, maternity, etc. We ALL need an effective public health service.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of affluent voters who have an interest in at least a degree of social justice.. certainly more than 1% anyway. But yes, clearly they're in the minority.

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Firstly, people who go private will tend not to

> > care about the NHS, so they're not going to

> vote

> > for policies to improve it (please don't tell

> me

> > everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly

> > vote for tax rises to improve a service they

> don't

> > use, because 99% won't)

>

> I think you're wrong there. Lots of people have

> private cover - it's almost the norm if you're in

> a professional private sector job. But we still

> rely on NHS for GPs, A&E, maternity, etc. We ALL

> need an effective public health service.

>

> Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of affluent

> voters who have an interest in at least a degree

> of social justice.. certainly more than 1% anyway.

> But yes, clearly they're in the minority.

Yes you're right - obviously 99% was somewhat hyperbolic. I entirely agree that we all need the NHS, but a lot of richer people simply don't seem to believe that - or at best pay lipservice to the idea but squeal the second it's suggested taxes will have to go up to pay for it.

[TE44]

I think people who have done better from poor backgrounds but still not middle earners, would

want to help. If its suggested from government

it would not be so freely given, esp this government, as they have divided people so much.

the damage they have and continue to do will not

be forgotten.

When any young person does any work experience, the higher paid do not recognise (not all) the struggle to get the fare for them to work for free. Yet workers in low wage will often put the

hat round. My mum used to say that's why the rich

are rich. This government have done

all they can to breed fragmentation in people

outside of the class of money and power.

[DaveR]

"I read your question - you failed to understand the answer. To make it more simple for your confused mind - A worker is someone who receives earned income to do a job. You can also do a job but not receive earned income such as a landlord might do or a speculator who plays with inherited or previously earned income to make an unearned profit. The Royal Family have jobs but are not 'workers' in the economic sense but they do a lot of good work."

I understood your original answer perfectly, and you've now given a different one, that is equally unpersuasive. As noted above, Corbyn uses the word 'worker' in an essentially Marxist context - not surprising in his case, but important for understanding the program that the manifesto is intended to describe, but actually seeks to obfuscate.

As an aside, many people earning over ?80k are 'workers' by the Lordship definition, but for Corbyn they are 'the rich'. They are also disproportionately likely to live and work in London or the Southeast so in purchasing power terms far from rich. However, they are more likely to be professional/managerial and not union members so can safely be excluded from the heroic status of 'worker'

[TheCat]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think people who have done better from poor

> backgrounds but still not middle earners, would

> want to help.

Possibly. I think you'd probably get an equal amount from poor backgrounds who would say..."well i managed to drag myself up, through hard work and dedication, so there's nothing stopping them except themselves. I didnt get any helping hands, so f#ck them"

I'm not saying thats the right way to think or not, just saying that im sure there would be all types, and its hard to speculate on what certain people might think based on their income....

[Cardelia]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is an indictment of the low pay policy

> promoted by the tory parties whereby a huge

> phlanx of the population don't even get enough to

> pay their way - this even applies to nurses,

> police & firemen who provide essential services.

> If these people earned sufficient basic pay then

> they would begin to pay tax.

The starting salary for a registered nurse is ?21,692 which is well above the ?11,500 personal income tax allowance. Even if you consider healthcare assistants as nurses, their starting salary is ?15,100 so they also pay income tax.

The starting salary for a police constable is ?19,383. They pay income tax.

The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is ?22,017. They pay income tax.

> The richer people and high paid must regard their

> taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they

> dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their

> jobs will be taken up by plenty of available

> people who will probably do a better job & for

> less.

If the hypothetical replacements for the rich are being paid less to do the same job, it stands to reason that they're going to be paying less tax. Therefore the country will receive less revenue. That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.

[JohnL]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TE44 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think people who have done better from poor

> > backgrounds but still not middle earners, would

> > want to help.

>

> Possibly. I think you'd probably get an equal

> amount from poor backgrounds who would say..."well

> i managed to drag myself up, through hard work and

> dedication, so there's nothing stopping them

> except themselves. I didnt get any helping hands,

> so f#ck them"

>

> I'm not saying thats the right way to think or

> not, just saying that im sure there would be all

> types, and its hard to speculate on what certain

> people might think based on their income....

Even those who think they got no help probably did, the

manager they "clicked" with, the lucky contact they made,

a person leaving at the right time when they were in the

"goldilocks" period.

Working hard is like the pre-requisite - you still need that

something else IMHO.

[robbin]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> "...in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx (and

> Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only ones

> who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for

> what it is: a system of symbolic violence in which

> privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the illusion

> that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by

> solipsistic acts of self-justification...)"

Classic! Only on the EDF!!!

BTW thanks for providing a bracketed explanation of the difficult to understand big words for us. Much appreciated.

[TE44]

I see what you're saying Cat, but I don't agree, you do not forget hardships as many people who go

through it, whether getting out or not are also

grateful for many things tbat would not be recognised by people born into a class where they

haven't experienced the struggle to eat.

People who have moved up in monetary health who have family who would still be classed as poor are often told, don't forget where you're from.

[Lordship 516]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think DaveR is pointing to something more

> sociological Lordship. In this reading 'workers'

> qua proletariat: zero contract, temporary,

> minimum-waged, unemployed, manual, no human

> capital (and little or no social or cultural

> capital), unpaid (housewives/househusbands, those

> staying at home to look after the elderly or

> infirm). That is why DaveR is not a 'worker' even

> though he works.

>

> in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx (and

> Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only ones

> who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for

> what it is: a system of symbolic violence in which

> privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the illusion

> that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by

> solipsistic acts of self-justification e.g. those

> who inherit gifts come to think of themselves as

> gifted in the education system). Unfortunately, as

> Bourdieu also saw, the 'workers' as so defined are

> subject to a reverse sociodicy of disillusion and

> stoic acceptance of their lot - partly because

> capitalism has dissolved the proletariat into 1.

> the precariat (the 'workers') 2. the aspirational

> consumer or highly paid unionist (e.g. tube

> worker). So they never rise up to fulfill Marx's

> promise, except in ways that are self-defeating

> (as in the ressentiment of Brexit).

Possibly, but he ill defines what he is driving at.

I would agree that the economic/political definition of a 'worker' need to be brought into the 21st century.

The gainfully employed for financial reward;

The gainfully underemployed for financial gain;

The available to be employed even if discouraged;

The stay-at-home carer who substitutes avoided cost for social care

The volunteer who add value to society at large [ie - soup kitchen & food bank organizers]

Charity 'workers', Third Sector Organizations & philantrophy

These ought all be added to the category of 'worker' & valued in the economic model in a meaningful manner; it would show exactly how much economic activity is undertaken in any economy. Some good work has been done but not enough has been included to highlight the important contribution all of these 'workers' make to our economy.

Not every productive activity that adds to the socio-economic mix is included in GDP statistics.

Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 said :

?GDP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.?

For that reason, in their report for the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP), Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi recommended a shift away from measures of economic production towards measures of economic well-being.

In the UK, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) now publishes measures of National Well-being in their annual ?Life in the UK? report.

Internationally, the UN has recently published its second World Happiness Report (United Nations (2014)). The UK ranks 22nd out of 156 countries. The OECD publishes a range of well-being indicators as part of its Better Life Index. An un-weighted average of its indicators ranks the UK 12th out of the 36 countries. The UK does well on measures of income, wealth, security and environment, less well on work-life balance, education, skills, and housing. There is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest ? in the UK the top 20% of the population earn nearly six times as much as the bottom 20%.

[Lordship 516]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This is an indictment of the low pay policy

> > promoted by the tory parties whereby a huge

> > phlanx of the population don't even get enough

> to

> > pay their way - this even applies to nurses,

> > police & firemen who provide essential services.

>

> > If these people earned sufficient basic pay

> then

> > they would begin to pay tax.

>

> The starting salary for a registered nurse is

> ?21,692 which is well above the ?11,500 personal

> income tax allowance. Even if you consider

> healthcare assistants as nurses, their starting

> salary is ?15,100 so they also pay income tax.

>

> The starting salary for a police constable is

> ?19,383. They pay income tax.

>

> The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is

> ?22,017. They pay income tax.

Apologies - I stated that a little lacking in definition - of course they pay tax if they earn over the tax allowance; that doesn't mean that they are being paid a fair amount. The differential between the starting salary for a PC & Fireman & nurse is strange given the importance & stress attached to all these activities. UK governments have had a policy of promoting a group of workers that are in low paid employment & this creates the gaps in overall income tax contributions between different percentiles of the population. Top 20% paid six times more than the bottom 10% - not a pleasant picture of a fair society.

> > The richer people and high paid must regard

> their

> > taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they

> > dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their

> > jobs will be taken up by plenty of available

> > people who will probably do a better job & for

> > less.

>

> If the hypothetical replacements for the rich are

> being paid less to do the same job, it stands to

> reason that they're going to be paying less tax.

> Therefore the country will receive less revenue.

> That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.

Everybody is eminently replaceable in the economic sense - It will follow that if the replacements are working for less then the services will move to equilibrium in time due to competition and will become cheaper & less of a cost to the economy - ergo a benefit in the economic mix.

..or lets pay everyone lots & lots of dosh so they can pay lashings of more income tax..eh? Great solution... gotta dash...must make the phonecall

[Cardelia]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apologies - I stated that a little lacking in

> definition - of course they pay tax if they earn

> over the tax allowance; that doesn't mean that

> they are being paid a fair amount. The

> differential between the starting salary for a PC

> & Fireman & nurse is strange given the importance

> & stress attached to all these activities. UK

> governments have had a policy of promoting a group

> of workers that are in low paid employment & this

> creates the gaps in overall income tax

> contributions between different percentiles of the

> population. Top 20% paid six times more than the

> bottom 10% - not a pleasant picture of a fair

> society.

I was trying not to comment on the 'fairness' aspect because it's all pretty subjective depending on what your definition of 'fair' actually is. I think pretty much everyone recognises that those who earn more should pay more, but where does the balance lie? Some would argue that the top 20% paying 6 times more income tax than the bottom 10% is a reflection of a fair tax collection system where those who can afford to pay more are actually paying more. A lot more.

> Everybody is eminently replaceable in the economic

> sense - It will follow that if the replacements

> are working for less then the services will move

> to equilibrium in time due to competition and will

> become cheaper & less of a cost to the economy -

> ergo a benefit in the economic mix.

I don't understand why this is a good thing. If a company is providing a service and it is providing it well because of the performance of highly paid individual(s), then replacing those individuals with cheaper workers of lesser ability will mean that the company is providing a worse service. Sure it'll be a cheaper service, but the work won't be as good. How does that benefit the economy?